|
Missouri v. Holland
Facts
On December 8, 1916, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was proclaimed by the President to protect the migratory bird species that traversed parts of the US and Canada. Such protection was essential in that the birds provided great value as a source of food and destroying harmful insects, but were in danger of extermination. Therefore, the Migratory Bird Act was enacted by Congress to give effect to the convention, prohibited the killing, capturing, Treaty or selling any of the migratory birds included in terms of the treaty except as permitted by regulations compatible with those terms to be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. The State of Missouri filed an injunction against Holland, the U.S. Game Warden, to prevent the enforcement the Act, contending that it violates the Tenth Amendment. It corroborated its claim with the precedents that upheld the unconstitutionality of the Congress’ enactment as to the same subject. Regardless, the district court held in Holland’s favor.
Issue
Whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the statute are void as an interference with the rights reserved to the States and quasi-sovereign immunity under Tenth Amendment
Reasoning
- The Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuant thereof; and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
- The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Application
The State of Missouri argued that the Act is unconstitutional because it intervened the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, the State contended that the it has the right to regulate the killing and sale of the birds because they are the owner of the birds within their territory. However, the Supreme Court rejected the the State’s argument, saying that although it is true that the State may regulate the killing and sale of the birds, it does not follow that its authority is exclusive of paramount powers, which is by act of Congress and treaties proclaimed by the President. Also, the Court ruled that wild birds are not in the possession of anyone, and possession is the beginning of ownership. Therefore, the Court held that the State’s argument is invalid.
Next, the Court emphasized that the Tenth Amendment is not sufficient enough to decide whether the treaty is void or not. This is due to Article 2 Section 2 of US Constitution, which enumerates the power of the President, and this includes making treaties. The Court acknowledged that a treaty may override the power of a State even though the great body of private relations usually falls within the control of the State. In addition, because the treaty was valid under the Constitution, the following act of Congress to make the statute was accordingly valid under Article I, Section 8.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree.
Feedback:
Homework on quasi-sovereign rights (my interpretation): Standing is required to file a lawsuit with the federal government. An individual can file a lawsuit if he or she has suffered a loss in violation of the generally problematic federal law. However, if a state files a lawsuit on behalf of citizens and property within its territory, it is recognized as having "Quasi-Sovereign Rights" as an exception. This ruling gives Missouri the equivalent of property rights to migratory birds in the territory (because the migratory birds do not stay permanently). Therefore, it could be understood at the beginning of the ruling that Missouri was qualified to file a lawsuit with the federal government in the position of representing it.
|